More concerns about the House NASA budget

By Jeff Foust on 2011 July 9 at 1:41 pm ET

As the details about the House Appropriations Committee’s proposed FY2012 NASA budget sink in, more individuals and organizations are raising concerns about the budget. The one item that has received the most attention has been the committee’s plan to terminate funding for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), effectively ending the program. The American Astronomical Society (AAS) released a statement Thursday calling on Congress to “support JWST to its completion” but also “provide strong oversight” for a project that has suffered major cost overruns and schedule delays. “It is time to complete construction and look ahead to JWST’s launch and science operations,” the AAS statement notes.

The proposed termination of JWST has attracted the attention of Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who chairs the corresponding appropriations subcommittee in the Senate. “It was a shortsighted and misguided move,” she said in a statement about the House appropriators’ decision to kill the project, noting that ending JWST would “kill 2,000 jobs nationwide and stall scientific progress and discovery.” She also called on the White House to “step in and fight for the James Webb Telescope.”

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) also made similar comments about the attempt to kill JWST. “I worry about the message we send to our students to reach for the stars and pursue careers in the sciences while simultaneously eliminating projects that further research and technology and keep us on the cutting edge of competitiveness,” she said.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told the Burbank Leader that he would move to restore proposed cuts in NASA’s budget when the full appropriations committee marks up the budget next week. Schiff, who serves on the CJS subcommittee that proposed the budget, said he was concerned about “dramatic cuts to space technology research and development and other vital efforts” in the budget. The Space Technology account was by over 60 percent from the administration’s budget request.

71 comments to More concerns about the House NASA budget

There has to be a Hubble successor. Consider a powerful space telescope as vital a space asset as the manned program. It is unthinkable that America would not operate one. Reorganize the existing program, or descope and redesign it with a new management team. Congress should think one more step ahead than slash and burn. Politicos use slash and burn as a face saving exercise, like the cancellation of Constellation. I always felt the JWST design was a little flaky.

Doing this to NASA does not solve the bigger problem of the budget deficit which is entitlements. Congress, as indicated above, more generally does seem get it. I faxed my complaint day one to Chairman Rogers.

“The proposed termination of JWST has attracted the attention of Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who chairs the corresponding appropriations subcommittee in the Senate. “It was a shortsighted and misguided move,” she said in a statement about the House appropriators’ decision to kill the project, noting that ending JWST would “kill 2,000 jobs nationwide and stall scientific progress and discovery.” She also called on the White House to “step in and fight for the James Webb Telescope.””

the job thing is “save our pork”…but it will be interesting to see what happens about the last sentence.

I’m glad Rep Schiff is standing up for Space Technology. I got to meet him briefly at the NGLLC awards ceremony back in 2009. I hope that other Congressmen join him in defending Space Tech from the budget axe. As for JWST, I have more mixed feelings. Almost all of the space science people I’ve talked with (including a lot in the astrophysics side of things) have been complaining about JWST and MSL eating the lunch of all the smaller science missions. While there are definitely benefits to completing JWST, there are also some pretty steep opportunity costs, and I can at least understand the argument of axing JWST so it doesn’t keep eating the lunch of all the smaller programs. Occasionally killing an out-of-control program may help keep the Space Science side of things from becoming as dysfunctional as the HSF side of NASA. But I’m open to counterarguments.

I have a sinking feeling tech and commercial will still end up gutted and NASA will become the “SLS-Orion-JWST” agency for the next eight years. What’s sad is that that’s what most of Congress would seem to prefer as well as the average American (when he chooses to care about space). This would all be like the Navy cutting back its fleet, save the aircraft carriers, who would, ironically, be rendered all the more useless.

JWST is in many ways the Constellation of SMD. A flagship program to replace an aging architecture that went way over budget, way behind schedule, and it’s not even clear that the budget will close. While I don’t believe that Congress will have the balls to shut JWST down (Senator Mikulski to the rescue!) the arguments to keep JWST going (see the press release from the American Astronomical Society) are spookily reminiscent of Constellation.

We’ve already spent so much! Can’t stop now.

We’ll lose our leadership!

Jobs will be lost!

A tragedy for STEM education!

These arguments are not only spookily reminiscent of those for Constellation. They’re just as lame as when they were used for Constellation. Sunk costs are a bad argument for continuation of any seriously troubled program, in this case managerially troubled. The decision to terminate Constellation was unfortunate, but healthy in the long run. Leadership in astrophysics is good, but where is the national need? Do we lead best by choking off smaller missions, as JWST is effectively doing? Jobs lost? Oh, they mean jobs for JWST. I’m betting that those workers will be matrixed onto other important projects. Ah yes, and STEM education. The old “inspiration” argument. Hands waving rapidly. As if STEM education couldn’t be advanced by spending several billion dollars somewhere else. What is unique about JWST for STEM education?

The project has produced a nifty map of the U.S. showing how most states contribute to JWST. So I guess the message there is that the huge cost overruns are benefiting multiple states. Not just one. Nice to know. Should make us feel better about those cost overruns, eh?

Now, the only argument for JWST I haven’t heard floated yet is about the dreaded “gap” that would be produced in large space telescopes if JWST were to be stopped. That argument is coming. Sound familiar?

I’m sorry. I love JWST, and the science it would produce is awesome, but the arguments expressed for it thus far have been poorly constructed. The astrophysics community should well be stunned by what has happened with this project and, like their colleagues in the human space flight side of the house, need to do a careful reexamination of their goals as a result. No, the Astronomy Decadal Survey (now largely derailed, at least for space) didn’t consider JWST. That was going to be a given. That wasn’t the careful reexamination I’m talking about. Whether JWST is propped up or killed, flagship NASA science projects are henceforth going to be saddled with a serious credibility deficit. The careful reexamination that is needed is whether flagship science missions are actually achievable anymore by NASA.

Let’s hope that JWST will be saved, and let’s hope that will happen because the science community can put together some convincing arguments to save it.

Any argument that the scientific community can put together to ‘save’ JWST will only be understood/gotten by like minded scientist. The American public writ large won’t get it, and doesn’t care they don’t get it.

There is no national interest, one that most Americans have, and is felt deeply, that JWST science addresses. The average Joe Six Pack cares more about the NFL owners and players reaching agreement on a contract, than any advances is astro-physics and cosmology that JWST may reveal.

And that is true for all of NASA Space Science.with the exception of those missions that advance understanding of Space Weather, and Earth Science.

JWST. The science could have been incredible. The original design is good, the execution is grossly flawed. NG has not changed the basic configuration (other than to take things off the spacecraft). You build what you bid. They knew the cost upfront. JWST should end this FY and a follow up spacecraft quickly developed. The ISIM is self contained, the sunshields on track, the mirrors done and the rest of the science is more or less going well. But you need a new spacecraft bus and prime contractor. Maybe Congress should stop all JWST work today give the funds to universities and aerospace companies in the hope they can build a better telescope and launch it before Hubble fails. Sounds like CxP.

NASA Fan wrote @ July 9th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
“Any argument that the scientific community can put together to ‘save’ JWST will only be understood/gotten by like minded scientist. The American public writ large won’t get it, and doesn’t care they don’t get it.”

I find that assessment perplexing in view of the overwhelming public support for HST when it was canceled several years ago, and even for continued operation of the MERs. It is possible, though, that this support arises from stunning capabilities that were already in hand and demonstrated, as opposed to capabilities that are merely promised.

But it’s a fair statement that the American public writ large may well not “get it”, and my point is that the thin arguments thus far advanced won’t very much help them “get it”.

A similar argument can be made about human space flight, which polling indicates has mixed public support. The point about thin arguments applies abundantly well here too.

Well, when you have a country where wether evolution or creationism should be taught in school is even a question, apathy and even opposition to something like a space telescope that’s going to tell us new and interesting things about cosmogenesis and the young universe are to be expected, no?

I know religion is a mine field when it comes to political discussion, but I thought I’d share this observation nonetheless.
It’s probably not really new or surprising to most of you anyway.

The only oversight Congress can provide authorization and appropriations. The GAO has already given them the bad news on JWST. They have already told NASA to get their house in order. Even during the press conference a journalist asked who was going to lose their job over this.. NASA’s response? Nothing. No-one lost their job. No-one ever loses their job.

Congress now has a choice. They can cancel JWST or they can send the clear message that there is no punishment for mismanagement.

I find that assessment perplexing in view of the overwhelming public support for HST when it was canceled several years ago…

That was then, this is now and we’re pass through the looking glass into the Age of Austerity. Congress has hatchet fever and would cheer George Washington taking an axe to a cherry tree these days if they could point to the stump and claim any credit for it. JWST is a luxury item. So is HSF.
And although HST support swelled as the image library grew, bear in mind it was a failure until HSF repaired it on orbit. HSF has always had broad but shallow support as well, particularly as a symbol of national leadership. Part of the ‘Cernan intangibles’ package.

When comparing current cost and schedule methods with earlier cost and schedule approaches, it became apparent that NASA’s organizational performance paradigm has morphed. Mission fulfillment speed has slowed and cost calculating factors have increased in 21st Century space exploration.

It gives two reasons:

(1) “The rapid development mindset in the ‘space race’ territory of yesteryear was supported by ‘frontier risk’ thinking. Risk aversion at all costs was not yet a NASA moniker.”

(2) “NASA of today has multiple contracting tentacles under its current business umbrella.”

I haven’t had the time to read through it, but maybe some of you would like some “light” (not) reading on a Sunday while I’m at work.

One would have to go back in time, to when HST was first declared a failure, to see what public sentiment was like to spend $100’s of Millions to repair it. I bet the public didn’t even know of HST as it was in development, like they do now for JWST.

I only think support swelled for HST when it was threatened with cancellation.

Pretty pictures yes, great science yes, but probably, since it was already up there, Joe Six Pack figures, ‘wow that’s a cool picture, hey honey,….pass the remote, the Bears kick off in 10 minutes.”

Now, with JWST, the $6B figure being thrown around, with Billions yet to go, the context is different, and, I suspect, that will give rise to ‘hacket fever’, no matter the science justification, amongst the Joe six packs out there.

We’ll see though. I am a science geek, so I want to see it continue. And I think the root cause of JWST is not ‘a manager’ at Goddard. It’s the cultural dynamic amongst the main players: WH, Congress, OMB, NASA HQ, Field Centers, and Contractors. A dynamic that axing JWST, or replacing the JWST program manager, won’t resolve.

Stephen, it will bring tears to your eyes when you get to the end of it and it shows an extremely long list of over runs in budget and schedule for just about anything NASA has put their hands to. Optimism Bias is the number one reason. Get the program, get the contract is the game both NASA and the cost plus contractors live by. Just get it started and we will worry about everything else later because it won’t get cut once it’s started, the congress people who benefit the most from the project will rail about the sunk costs and it will continue to go forward.

“On the subject of bloated NASA programs, I ran across this 2009 study:”

Bloated? Maniacal laughter fills the air.

Try searching Deep Water, V-22, F-22, F-35, and even maintenance on the Presidential helicopter fleet. Littoral combat ships and boomers converted to seal team taxis are other examples. The examples go on and on. That is where our space program went.

Weapons are easy money- they do not even have to work very well. Rockets are hard money. Unless you build one in your garage with 1960’s NASA technology and other more recent taxpayer funded developments.

There is no substitute for a heavy lift vehicle with hydrogen upper stages.

Well, when you have a country where wether evolution or creationism should be taught in school is even a question, apathy and even opposition to something like a space telescope that’s going to tell us new and interesting things about cosmogenesis and the young universe are to be expected, no?

I think you are used to a society run by experts, unaccountable to the public. Secularism and socialism are their religions. Here, we must deal with the diverse wishes of those whom you consider wacky in the bible and sun belts. Interestingly, these are the most economically vibrant places in America. That means occasionally science has to be defended. I only wish science’s defenders were more eloquent.

NASA Fan wrote @ July 10th, 2011 at 10:50 am
“Now, with JWST, the $6B figure being thrown around, with Billions yet to go, the context is different, and, I suspect, that will give rise to ‘hacket fever’, no matter the science justification, amongst the Joe six packs out there.”

That’s a fair point. But what I was trying to say is that the same lessons on rationale and justification for flagship missions in the human space flight community are now coming home to the science community. In the same way that the current rationale and justification for each community are spookily similar and similarly lame, one would like to believe that sensible rationale and justification may apply similarly to both, once the communities take the trouble to figure it out.

It is also an excellent point that, in the Age of Austerity, the old exploration/inspiration/national leadership arguments just don’t apply anymore. We all flame at Congress for subscribing to the jobs argument but, you know, in their eyes, that’s the only argument that remains relevant.

Be aware that this subcommittee includes two passionate (and I mean REALLY passionate) defenders of NASA science and astronomy in particular. Culbertson is an amateur astronomer, and is vocal and energetic in his enthusiasm about NASA space science. His special love is extrasolar planet detection. Schiff is, well, the rep from the JPL district. While JWST doesn’t have a lot of investment in JPL, and that center and GSFC are often at each others throats for science investment, he’s not dumb enough to kill important science. Schiff and Culbertson work together across the aisle routinely in behalf of space science, by the way.
Oh, did JWST eat funds that might have supported SIM, a now cancelled JPL project? Well now ,,,

The footnote in space history that such a bill produces might actually be a very good one. Perhaps just in that it scares the s*** out of the science community.

“Charlie Bolden was interviewed this morning by Candy Crowley on CNN’s State of the Union.” … and said nothing of consequence, deferring to the stated presidential ‘vision’ of the future as stated last year at the Cape. A president who scuttled America’s manned space program for the immediate future. Musgrave has been much more realistic of late about shuttle management and operations. Network news reports are already referring to shuttle in the past tense. Americans- and managing editors- have moved on from shuttle, pondering why their government failed to have a follow along program and replacement spacecraft in place up and running. Shuttle operations are decidely out of place in this era, as the powers that be clash over debt ceilings as America faces financial default, where, with apologies to Gene Kranz, ‘failure is clearly an option.’ America’s long spiral down to Earth since July, 1969 has been anguished and painful… and the landing will be a hard one.

Stephen, it will bring tears to your eyes when you get to the end of it …

Thanks, I’ll get to it one of these days.

Here in the Space Coast we’ve been VERY busy the last few days with tourist guests at the KSC visitor complex and the CCAFS museum. So many people wanting to know what’s next, asking a lot of intelligent questions.

So I spend a lot of time with them explaining what’s next — ISS, COTS/CCDev, SLS — and discussing the permutations.

We’re all emotional about the end of Shuttle, but I remind them, “Today is the beginning of what’s next.”

I also have some photos of the SpaceX Dragon that was at the CCAFS museum’s history center and will try to post them in the next day or two. Lots of close-up photos for you to dissect.

It’s not clear to me that the original JWST is a good one. It contains a lot of novel technologies that don’t have flight heritage for such a high profile and cost mission like the deployable segmented mirror. It’s a neat technology but it seems like it would be better tested with a technology demonstration mission before including it in a multi-billion dollar flagship mission.

This is a nation that spends 800+ billion dollars in “stimulus” at the drop of a hat, but bless its heart, it finds human spaceflight just too darn expensive. The stimulus bill, depending on the numbers, could fund NASA at its current budget for 40+ years. But there was just no way to increase its budget to say, $25 billion a year, to keep an occasional shuttle flight to service ISS, return to the moon, make an asteroid flight or two-just no way.
Now, unmanned space advocates think the budget knife will magically stay away from their pet missions? Did anybody really think that less money for manned exploration would mean more for unmanned missions? Sorry. Go ahead and kill JWST. The mars missions will be next. If the great age of manned exploration is over, ditto for unmanned exploration as well.
You should have learned to support both manned and unmanned exploration with equal vigor. Soon, there will be very slim pickins’ for everybody.

“This is a nation that spends 800+ billion dollars in “stimulus” at the drop of a hat, but bless its heart, it finds human spaceflight just too darn expensive. ”

The stim was a bad idea and badly executed. It had no real long lasting affect, when the money ran out the people who it “saved” are being laid off. We didnt get a lot of value for the cost of the effort.

the TARP was a bad idea and badly executed. Its long term affect was to save institutions which had more or less screwed the economy and did not force a lot of good change on them. Now the banks are flush with cash and wont lend much at all. we dont have a lot for the cost of the effort.

The wars were a bad idea and badly executed. Who knows what their long term effect will be, but in the short term (aside from the lives) we have spent 4.5 trillion dollars when what we needed to spend was around 50 billion killing OBL and calling it even. Short term (ie the first 10-15 years) we got nothing of value near the cost of the effort.

Whatever money we have spent at NASA in the last 10-20-30 years has produced nothing that justifies continuing the effort. There are jobs but like the stim if you figure the cost per job based on the spending, the cost are hugh. What do we gert from that for value? Nothing that is convincing enough to keep going.

You may find the effort exciting, good picture or for all I know a paycheck but in the end its just not worth it.

We have to stop spending on failed institutions…the downside of capitalism is failure…but it is a necessary one.

Weapons are easy money- they do not even have to work very well. Rockets are hard money. Unless you build one in your garage with 1960′s NASA technology and other more recent taxpayer funded developments.

And this is the problem with the “Only NASA” mentality. So just who is building rockets these days in “garages” using 1960’s technology? This is the kind of hyperbole that needs to be avoided.

Weapons are easy money and ATK loves subsidizing them with their RSRM contracts. That needs to end. And it will. While the “Only NASA” crowd is running around like chicken little screaming the sky is falling, industry is moving into position.

Behind closed doors reality sets in and we all know how well NASA does designing stuff over the past 30 years. Anything costing more than a billion dollars is always behind schedule and over budget. NASA cannot manage itself. NASA bites off more than it can chew.

“So I spend a lot of time with them explaining what’s next — ISS, COTS/CCDev, SLS — and discussing the permutations.”
Next to nothing you mean. COTS/CCDev, SLS — and ‘the permutations’… in other words, press release chatter. It’s gonna get awful quiet down there as the Age of Austerity hits home after wheels stop. And FYI, ISS has been in orbit for a decade so what’s next for it is splash. And here’s a reality: the debt crisis crowd took a three day vacation, then gathered at the White House this evening to address the looming fiscal disaster and met for just 75 minutes then broke for the night, going no place fast– less than the time for the ISS/Atlantis complex to complet one orbit at 17,500 mph.

“There is no substitute for a heavy lift vehicle with hydrogen upper stages.”

There’s no need for them either. How ironic.

If you think otherwise, then just tell us where in the budget Congress has funded the programs that are supposed to use the HLV? Last I looked Congress wants to decrease NASA’s budget, not increase it for Moon and Mars nation building.

With the up and coming launch of the MSL, let us hope, that first the mission will succeed, and then secondly, we will be getting amazing science for YEARS to come. A failure here will not be good. With the present rover activities on the red planet, we got more than we paid for, and peoples interest was maintained. An even more robust rover, like the MSL, should keep the public interest at a high. Just perhaps, as history has shown us before, surprizes await human kind, if the MSL meets even 50% of its mission goals.

The best example of congress telling NASA “enough” is the Cassini spacecraft. The spacecraft was about $750,000,000 over budget so congress made them strip things off the spacecraft or lose it. JPL did and cut cost. That’s why the instruments are mounted to the side and not on a boom. JWST is finished, but hopefully a new mission can be quickly organized and approved. Maybe let JPL build the spacecraft bus and do the integration. Keep the instruments going, but find a new contractor.

Z-Bob wrote @ July 10th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
“Now, unmanned space advocates think the budget knife will magically stay away from their pet missions? Did anybody really think that less money for manned exploration would mean more for unmanned missions?”

That’s simplistic. Only the most politically naive members of the the science community believe that it’s a zero sum game. But, you know, although the real budget for Astrophysics has dropped off over the last few years, and dramatically so with the movement of JWST out of the Division, the budget for Earth Science has increased just as dramatically. Not hard to say that fractionally decreased money for human space flight has led to more for Earth Science. No, maybe nobody thought it would happen, but it appears to have happened. Just look at the numbers.

Well actually, it was that budget increases to the agency largely went to Earth Science. But still …

Well of course spending on Earth science will increase since global warming is the current political fashion in thinking, but NASA is an aeronautics and SPACE administration. Other agencies could handle Earth science.
If most people believe as Oler does that NASA has produced nothing of lasting consequence (is he serious?), then just abolish NASA. There is no need to send robots anywhere that humans will never travel to. The intellectual curiosity of a scientific elite won’t be justification to “Joe Sixpack” to spend even a few hundred million of his tax dollars on space probes.
The average person wants to know that there is a larger and better future available to his /her children. Little remote control cars scooting around on Mars isn’t going to cut it, no matter the quality of the science returned.
In terms of naked self-interest, flights to asteroids, manned and unmanned, can be justified because of the danger they pose, but the chances of impact are considered so remote I doubt there will be much support.

A failure here will not be good. With the present rover activities on the red planet, we got more than we paid for, and peoples interest was maintained. An even more robust rover, like the MSL, should keep the public interest at a high.

The loss of technical continuity between the Mars Rovers and MSL is a crime. One would think that you would want to build two of the most successful unmanned missions in history with a lower risk mission. One looks at MSL and can only ask, “who designs this stuff?” The sky crane had better darn well work or you can kiss the Mars program goodbye too.

Musgrave has been much more realistic of late about shuttle management and operations.

“If most people believe as Oler does that NASA has produced nothing of lasting consequence (is he serious?), then just abolish NASA.”

I will be careful with the words you use, so you darn sure need to be careful with mine. I never said anything like the above quote which has my name in it.

“NASA” Has produced things of lasting consequence directly related to its mission. The notion of geo synch communications although fairly commonplace now (heck I have an earth station which can see the carrier of the Messenger probe and probes around Mars) today was at one time very very difficult…and NASA coupled with private industry did the technology work to make it happen (Syncom). The experiements in LEO satellites (Echo, Relay, and West Ford) were useful as well.

Aeronautics speaks for itself. There would not be fly by wire without the first A and most airfoils are a legacy of NACA…

But what I said was that so far human spaceflight has found nothing of value for the cost which argues to continue it. The cost of HSF under NASA has gone up, we are spending a billion or so dollars to deliver 8000 pounds of cargo to the station and what is done there has not generated any products that stand alone.

If yoiu think so I am glad to hear them from you (and please dont do GPS or teflon or Tang or cell phones or battery powered tools) first they are not something for the most part HSF had anything to do with and b they are not about something done in space.

What product will we no longer have when we go wheels stop here in a few days

Z-Bob wrote @ July 11th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
“but NASA is an aeronautics and SPACE administration.”

Doesn’t take much insight to see that the Earth science that NASA is doing is by far best done from SPACE. Yes, other agencies can “handle Earth science”. They just can’t handle putting things into space to make the measurements that are needed. Takes more than cameras.

“In terms of naked self-interest, flights to asteroids, manned and unmanned, can be justified because of the danger they pose, but the chances of impact are considered so remote I doubt there will be much support.”

But you know, other agencies can “handle” the asteroid threat. DOD is the Department of DEFENSE. So in terms of naked self-interest, you’re exactly right that there should be no support for NASA missions to scope out dangerous asteroids.

“Joe Sixpack” is already quite happy with the unmanned probes that NASA is sending out. Congress is putting $5B/yr into SMD to do it, and has been funding it that well for a long, long time. You can bet that if Joe Sixpack isn’t happy about it, his congressman won’t be happy about it. You’d be surprised what Joe Sixpack might want to hoist his tall one to.

It is perhaps precisely because JWST is such a high profile program that it is being targeted by the Republican House. Given all the press coverage the past few days, there will be no way to separate “cost overruns”, “poor management” and “NASA” in the public’s mind, at least not in the near future.

Social security and medicare spending cuts are on the table, prominently. If I wanted to pit the science intellectuals against the poor and disabled, I would be hard pressed to find a better way than by letting a “JWST vs Medicare” debate flower and set fruit. In the mean time the budget for the war on terror grows unabated and unscrutinized.

“But what I said was that so far human spaceflight has found nothing of value for the cost which argues to continue it.”<– Goofy–and quite provincial.

Other nations have shown they not only disagree with what you 'value' but continue to commit resources to it– ewven through difficult times. . Witness Russia. and the PRC, which has plans for its own space station and a lunar voyage by 2020. Your judgement of what to assignment as 'valued' continues to be quite poor. With respect to a variety of industries in the United States, the list of 'spinoffs' from the HSF program speak for themselves and there's the valued, soft power return to the U.S. through HSF in the geopolitical arena, a subset of the famed 'Cernan intangibles.' And, of course, the 'value' of HSF has been embraced as an element of unbroken, on going national commitment for half a century by Russia, (even through massive internal changes) and the rising commitment of the PRC to HSF is clear to western observers as they have plans for a space station and a lunar voyage by 2020.

Americans regard their space program, shuttle et al., for what it represents as a symbol to the world of what Americans can do–not for what it actually does. That’s an essential element of the ‘Cernan intangibles’ and part of the national character.

If you live by a shallower, more pedestrian ‘value system,’ there’s a prime piece of island real estate off Battery Park at the southern tip of NYC ripe for big dollar condo development and as luck would have it, the price of scrap copper is quite high these days as well.

Given all the press coverage the past few days, there will be no way to separate “cost overruns”, “poor management” and “NASA” in the public’s mind, at least not in the near future.

The end of the shuttle program is very naturally a political event that needed to be managed. The smart people in the administration that crushed existing post shuttle plans knew this. We could have been looking at CNN animations of a bright future of moon landings and super boosters as Constellation neared completion. Instead we get melancholy interviews of the newly unemployed. The NASA leadership and newspace nerds were nowhere to be seen. I for one will enjoy the coming political reprisals.

“But you know, other agencies can “handle” the asteroid threat. DOD is the Department of DEFENSE. So in terms of naked self-interest, you’re exactly right that there should be no support for NASA missions to scope out dangerous asteroids.”

While other agencies are involved and have their roles, it turns out that the problem requires abilities and functionalities unique to NASA.

DCSCA wrote @ July 11th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
“Americans regard their space program, shuttle et al., for what it represents as a symbol to the world of what Americans can do–not for what it actually does. That’s an essential element of the ‘Cernan intangibles’ and part of the national character.”

That’s also slightly crazy. Americans value human spaceflight as a sign of what we “can do” as opposed to what we actually do? I would not have put it that way. If you told an American on the street that our human space flight represents to the world what we could do, but actually don’t, I suspect that would leave their head spinning, and probably result in a call to their congressman. So much for “intangibles”.

The “soft power” argument carries the most weight here. ISS is a fabulous engineering feat, and recognized as that. The shuttle, while a failure fiscally, was a technological success. Those vehicles, as well as the numerous sophisticated unmanned missions that support most of space science, are a symbol of national pride. Why? Because they’re damned hard to do, and we have to be damned good technologically to do them. Those aren’t things that show what we can do, they’re things that show what we actually did. But our human space flight program is hampered by the value question because it’s about implementation, and not about meeting national needs. Soft power is a, well, soft national need. Aside from success in implementation, our human space flight program is understood to lack any ultimate goals. FWIW, human risk is largely engineered out, and with it is any real heroism and courage. Sorry, I have a lot of respect for our astronauts, but I sure don’t look at them as particularly courageous heroes. They do a job, and that job has some real risks, but everyone really expects them to come home.

Now, ISS (and using Shuttle to build it) has shown, very clearly, that the human organism has potential in zero-g. We didn’t know that before, and while we still don’t understand it completely, we’ve used those facilities to cross a fantastically important bridge to going further. It’s ludicrous to talk about voyages to Mars and beyond without knowing what ISS has taught us.

I’ve posted the photos I shot last week of the SpaceX Dragon on display at the Air Force Space & Missile History Center. So far as I know, this is the first time it’s been on public display so this is your first opportunity to see the technology up close.

Everyone knows that JWST will survive. It isn’t the target. The target of NASA’s overall budget cut and the end of JWST is NASA’s management and its slow-roll show featuring SLS and Orion MPCV. As an arch-Conservative, Rand understands all-too-well what is meant by “draining the swamp”. This is Wolf’s try at draining NASA’s swamp of non-priority spending.

Wolf knows full well that Mikulski, backed by Shelby, will get her JWST funding. Only, rather than coming from added funds, it will come out of NASA’s “fat”. Shelby will ensure, just as will Hutchison, that SLS and Orion MPCV funding is likewise preserved. Or, more likely, increased!

The big question for so many here is from where will CCDev funding come? Let’s review–NASA is taking a funding haircut, JWST gets funded to the tune of several hundred million, SLS and Orion MPCV funding remains the same or actually increases leaving…not much for CCDev and other pet projects of NASA’s No. 2 and her side-kick the CFO.

The party is just get starting…heck, the girl hasn’t even popped-out of the cake yet and run-off, though that is coming soon. And with the lawyers in tow…

Rep. Hall, like Rep. Wolf, is fighting the President’s numb-skull space policy not because he has a NASA Center in his district, but because he deeply believes that the Presidemt and his space policy troupe are dead wrong.

Know what your worst enemy is? One who does something not out of economic interest but out of principle. That’s Wolf, Hall, Rockefeller and Boozman. The problem for the President is that he’s doing this because he couldn’t care a less about space. That’s why he’s twice lost this fight with Congress.

U.S. lawmakers…would leave it to the space agency to decide how to apportion the bulk of a deep top-line budget cut, according to a congressional report obtained by Space News.

…

The subcommittee also warned NASA that funds appropriated for the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle are intended for design and development, and not for covering expenses related to “civil service oversight, program integration, ground operations and mission operations.

Oops…there’s more.
“In order to facilitate the Committee’s oversight of NASA’s ‘taxation’ of the MPCV and SLS budgets for those related expenses, NASA’s spending plan should clearly itemize all costs under both the MPCV and SLS programs that are not directly tied to actual vehicle design and development and provide a justification for why those expenses cannot be addressed elsewhere or deferred,” the report said.

Don’t you just love it when Congress discovers how NASA’s leadership has secretly tried to bleed funds from the SLS and Orion programs? Well, I know I do.

Many here thought NASA could tangle with Congress and win. Yeah…so, that’s not working out so well. And Hall, Johnson, Rockefeller, Wolf, Fattah, Mikulski, and Shelby can keep on dancing this dance for years to come. As they do, the language will become more specific.

An editorial in Florida Today calls on the House to reject the appropriations committee’s NASA budget cuts, and estimates that it will whack about 50% out of commercial crew/cargo.

They also call on Space Coast Reps. Adams and Posey to fight the cuts, but they’ve voted for NASA cuts in FY11 despite partisan rhetoric to the contrary so don’t count on them to help the Space Coast any time soon.

Z-Bob wrote @ July 11th, 2011 at 6:20 pm OK I should have been more specific, but I was responding to the quote you had about human spaceflight. I agree I could have been more specific…but in the reality of the context of the message and the totality of my comments here it is clear what I meant RGO

“Don’t you just love it when Congress discovers how NASA’s leadership has secretly tried to bleed funds from the SLS and Orion programs?”

The Space News article says nothing of the sort. The House approps. subcommittee is stating that they want efficiently run SLS and MPCV projects, not a Constellation repeat that wastes taxpayer dollars on unnecessary “civil service oversight, program integration, ground operations and mission operations”. Those activities are part of SLS/MPCV (and the old Constellation program). They’re not activities going on outside of SLS/MPCV.

“Rep. Hall, like Rep. Wolf, is fighting the President’s numb-skull space policy not because he has a NASA Center in his district, but because he deeply believes that the Presidemt (sic) and his space policy troupe are dead wrong. ”

not really. RAlph is an old fool who gets a lot of campaign dollars from the good folks who are the contractors for NASA. He thinks that the Chinese are going to take over the Moon…RGO

CCDev is underfunded, but the four CCDev-2 spacecraft continue to be funded (i.e. CCDev-3). If one is cut, likely it will be either Dream Chase or Blue Origin’s biconic capsule because of cost concerns.

Boeing continues to make progress on their CST-100, but don’t commit enough internal funds to greatly accelerate the development schedule.

SpaceX completes the COTS program and make 10 CRS deliveries to the ISS by the end of 2014. Falcon 9/Dragon Cargo performance is validated, and any needed improvements are identified and likely incorporated by CRS flight 10.

By this time, if the SLS and MPCV have survived, it will become clear that a combination SLS/MPCV will not be ready until well into the next decade, and since NASA has had to start extending it’s agreements for more Soyuz flights, Congress realizes that Commercial Crew is really the only way forward to support the ISS with American transportation.

Congress defunds more science programs in order to cover the SLS and MPCV cost overruns, but does provide more money to the CCDev program to accelerate a commercial crew system. The CCDev program is reduced to two participants, with SpaceX being one, and likely Boeing being the other.

SpaceX is far enough along that they can commit to being ready in two years, and if Congress provides enough guaranteed business, will commit to $140M per flight ($20M/seat). Boeing will say they need three years, and will commit to $280M per flight, or $40M/seat, with a minimum number of flights. Russia has already raised their prices to $70M/seat, up from the current $63M, so Congress authorizes NASA to split the ISS business between SpaceX and Boeing to ensure competition.

AFTER 2015

The SLS is cancelled after it becomes clear that it is consuming too much of NASA’s budget, and is both over-budget and behind schedule. Oh, and they finally figure out that there are no payloads for it to launch.

The MPCV is shifted over to a common payload interface so it can launch on Delta IV Heavy or Falcon Heavy. Added to other delays it has experienced, the first unmanned launch date is now forecasted for 2019.

SpaceX and Boeing start successfully flying their crew systems, Bigelow announces a 2017 launch date for it’s first BA-330 (with another to follow), and suddenly everyone in Congress congratulates themselves for being the most ardent supporters of free enterprise in space.

The MPCV is de-funded, and Congress starts funding the Nautilus-X, which will use modified versions of commercial crew capsules for LEO-L1 transportation and lifeboat duty.

As you know, Congress can be told something, but that doesn’t mean that they understand or believe it.

I’m just surmising what could happen if the Congressional momentum for the SLS continues on regardless of the undeniable lack of need. That is unless it experiences it’s own “bridget to nowhere” moment, but I think everyone is focused on much bigger issues right now.

Oh those ‘crazy’ taxpayers… An anecdote– on July 4, as luck would have it, the ISS was passing almost directly overhead at our locale- just before the local fireworks display downtown so it was a good, clear 4 minute pass. Made mention of it to the surrounding folks, parents and kids alike, and every one looked up, some with binoculars, some with their naked eyes, and expressed national pride on the Fourth of July — and wonder at the achievement of their country as the thing made its steady transit across the twilght. Then a few wondered outloud– “what the heck are they doing up there, anyway?” Next, the cost entered the conversation– made mention thay that ‘bright dot’ cost $100 billion bucks and will continue to cost $6 billion a year to operate. The parental ‘ooohs’ and ‘ahhhs’ changed to ‘huhs?’– and ‘WTFs??’— and most notably, ‘what a waste!!” Yeah, it’s ‘crazy’ how Americans take pride in their space program for what it can do– and not really know what it actually does.

“SpaceX and Boeing start successfully flying their crew systems, Bigelow announces a 2017 launch date for it’s first BA-330 (with another to follow), and suddenly everyone in Congress congratulates themselves for being the most ardent supporters of free enterprise in space.”

Fantasy. Try Space X closes it’s doors like all the other space startups and Congress roundly denounces the money and time wasted on the ISS and CCdev.

“Try Space X closes it’s doors like all the other space startups and Congress roundly denounces the money and time wasted on the ISS and CCdev.”

Without the CRS contract, SpaceX still has $1.8B worth of commercial launch backlog, so why would they go out of business?

Ending the ISS means an end to our only permanent location in space, so why is that good? It’s also the only permanent location in space for many other countries, so ending the ISS would mean less trust with the U.S. on any future HSF endeavors. Are you an isolationist too?

The CCDev program also includes Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corp., both long time aerospace companies. Why wouldn’t you be rooting for them to succeed? Why don’t you like the idea of commercial spacecraft lowing the cost to access space for humans and cargo alike?

As much as you claim to be a space supporter, you only want to support space efforts if they include a massive rocket that send people far away using nuclear power. That’s kind of limiting. It also doesn’t support humanity populating space, since you don’t want anyone in the part of space closest to the Earth.